<span>The Austro-Hungarian empire was endangered by feelings of nationalism because there were multiple national groups within the empire. So fulfilling nationalist goals would mean a dividing of the empire. The mere fact that the question refers to the empire as "Austro-Hungarian" is already a strong hint of the issue. Prior to 1867, it had been known as simply the Austrian Empire, but a compromise in 1867 meant that a dual monarchy was recognized (an Austrian ruler and a Hungarian ruler). The Hungarians were given self-governing authority over their own internal affairs in their portion of the empire. Other people groups within the empire would seek their own recognition as well -- Czechs, Serbs, Croats, etc. So where nationalism was a uniting factor in regions like the Italian peninsula and the German territories north of Austria, for the Austrian empire, nationalism was a dividing force.</span>
To build middle bases to attack the US
C. Representation in Congress and also direct taxes on the population of the states.
The 3/5 compromise determined how slaves would be counted in deterring a states population. This would directly affect the house of representatives (which is counted by population) and taxes that are based on population.
One reason why the Patriots were more willing to go to war was because D. Patriots were more likely than Loyalists to believe in the idea of consent of the governed.
<h3>Why did Patriots go to war?</h3>
The Patriots were against the way they were being treated in the colonies by the British and so wanted their independence. They did not believe that the British should be able to treat them as they were being treated without their consent and representation in government.
As a result, they decided that war was the best way forward. Loyalists on the other hand did not mind being under the British and were much less inclined to believe in Consent of the Governed by definition.
Find out more on the American Patriots at brainly.com/question/618930
#SPJ1
The Whigs faced a different scenario. The victory of James K. Polk (Democrat) over Henry Clay (Whig) in the 1844 presidential election had caught the southern Whigs by surprise. The key element of this defeat, which carried over into the congressional and local races in 1845 and 1846 throughout the South, was the party's failure to take a strong stand favoring Texas annexation. Southern Whigs were reluctant to repeat their mistakes on Texas, but, at the same time, Whigs from both sections realized that victory and territorial acquisition would again bring out the issue of slavery and the territories. In the South in particular, there was already the realization, or perhaps fear, that the old economic issues that had defined the Second Party System<span> were already dead. Their political goal was to avoid any sectional debate over slavery which would expose the sectional divisions within the party.</span>After an earlier attempt to acquire Texas by treaty had failed to receive the necessary two-thirds approval of the Senate, the United States annexed the Republic of Texas by a joint resolution of Congress that required simply a majority vote in each house of Congress. President John Tyler signed the bill on March 1, 1845, a few days before his term ended. As many expected, the annexation led to war with Mexico. After the capture of New Mexico and California in the first phases of the war, the political focus shifted to how much territory would be acquired from Mexico. The key to this was the determination of the future status of slavery in any new territory.
Both major political parties had labored long to keep divisive slavery issues out of national politics. The Democrats had generally been successful in portraying those within their party attempting to push a purely sectional issue as extremists that were well outside the normal scope of traditional politics.[2] However, midway through Polk's term, Democratic dissatisfaction with the administration was growing within the Martin Van Buren, or Barnburner, wing of the Democratic Party over other issues. Many felt that Van Buren had been unfairly denied the party's nomination in 1844 when southern delegates resurrected a convention rule, last used in 1832, requiring that the nominee had to receive two-thirds of the delegate votes. Many in the North were also upset with the Walker tariff which reduced the tariff rates; others were opposed to Polk's veto of a popular river and harbor improvements bill, and still others were upset over the Oregon settlement with Great Britain where it appeared that Polk did not pursue the northern territory with the same vigor he used to acquire Texas. Polk was seen more and more as enforcing strict party loyalty primarily to serve southern interests. Hope This Helps! Can I have Brainliest? Please:)
